Michael uses an example of Scientific theory and
Astro Physics -- from over 113 years ago, When most people still
traveled by horse and buggy, few electric lights, few phones, fewer automobiles, no TV, and no radio, The 1st airplane would not
fly for 2 more years, and about 50 years before the first computers.

Tell me -- If 98% of Science predicted doom
if -- If you found a crack in the wing of jet, would you still fly in
it?A major earthquake just happened off the coast of Japan, Thailand,
India, or Hawaii -- and not move to higher ground?Schedule a canoe trip
with a Hurricane moving in?Hike Mt. Timpanogas with major a snowstorm 12
hours away?

Excellent and accurate article. As our grandparent's science is to us, so
will our science be to our grandchildren. Everything we think we know today will
eventually be proven to be completely wrong or at least very incomplete. So much
for "settled" science! As far as religion goes, my religion is
incomplete as well because I believe in everything God has revealed, everything
He does now reveal and I believe God will yet reveal many great and important
things in the future. Personally, I could never embrace a religion that teaches
otherwise any more that I could embrace science that tries to tell me anything
is "settled".

Follow the money. When government funds "scientists" to "prove"
that man is causing global warming, and when the desire of government is to tax
the people for emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, just what is a
scientist to do?

NASA scientists found: "As reported by Principia
Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA
tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and
following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they
found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this
immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than
deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere."

James Taylor
wrote this in Forbes: "People who look behind the self-serving statements by
global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always
known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have
access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not
only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these
skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus."

I presume the writer is referring to climate change. In a sense the writer is
correct. Climate science is one of the youngest sciences and readily admits one
of the most complex therefore one of the least settled in it's details.

None of that however casts any doubt on the general theme that
currently the climate is changing with the influence of human activities.

A better comparison would be evolution. The details of how evolution
occurs and has occurred are always changing, but none of the discoveries cast
any doubt on the process of life developing through the evolutionary process.

One of the problems with climate science in my opinion is that it
has developed during the era of the 24/7 news cycle, and has become embedded in
political policy, so everyone is always looking for the dramatic. A consequence
of this is predictions that are not well founded.

Most sciences use
predictions as a source of driving research and questioning. I'm sure
climate scientists do this also, but their predictions unfortunately also get
hijacked and used as a guide to what the future "will" look like.

The idea that the gov't is funding scientific inquiry on
climate change as a conspiracy to tax people is silly.

The reality is
that gov't subsidizes the very things causing global warming -- from the
incentives and subsidies for drilling and mining fossil fuels to the water
necessary to create steam for electricity from burning fossil fuels to the
railroads and pipelines to transport fossil fuels to the ObamaCare needed to
treat Black Lung Disease from coal workers. By your logic, people could think
gov't was out to destroy the planet by keeping the flame burning on fossil
fuels.

The denial of climate change is largely because the science
doesn't fit conservative's values and sensibilities. If climate
change were determined to cause "problems" conservatives cared about --
like increases in gay marriage or acceptance of evolution or harm to
"traditional families" -- you'd see greater acceptance and demand
to address climate change.

The problem is climate change is often
tied to demands for carbon taxes, collective action, and clean, price-stable
energy -- issues abhorred by conservatives.

@Ranch,Re: "I'll take "unsettled science" over
"settled religion" any day"...

But... Global Warming (and
environmentalism) IS "religion" to many hippies....

I mean if
you've been to any earth/human worshiping rallies conducted by the so
called "environmentalists"... you would KNOW it's their religion.
And that's OK. To each his own.

Just don't force YOUR
religion on ME...

And don't use the Government to force me to
live YOUR religion...

===

I was going to say, "Oh...
not again", when I read the headline... but this is kinda fun...

At least it gets us THINKING about Science... and Religion...

===

I don't think science and religion are necessarily in
conflict BTW. If YOU do... you probably need to re-think your religion.. or
your science. I think science and religion fit well together and are not
enemies.

Google "List of Christian thinkers in science"...
it's a huge list.

I think you must understand science to
understand religion and why things are the way they are. But just one or the
other alone... is not complete.

You're confusing Newtonian science with the principle of "OJ
Simpsonian" justice. That is, as long as there's a shred of evidence
against it, the entire body of evidence is void because that's what you
want of it.

When
the Oil, Coal and Gas Corporations fund "scientists" to "prove"
that God is causing global warming, and when the desire of corporations is to
maximize profits, Whom to believe a scientist with a measly stipend grant or the
above?

Incidentally do you believe that cigarettes are safe?

Mtnman You got the part about religion not being settled, correct. However
science never claims perfect knowledge, and, although sometimes stubbornly,
changes when new facts are discovered. There is competition among scientists to
prove or disprove theories based on facts, and most scientist readily admit
little is settled.

Science and religion should not compete, but often
do, when religions cling to their grandparents knowledge of science as magic or
acts of God, when science can now explain them to folks who can understand.

If I follow the money....why does BYU teach evolution? Because most Mormons
think that science are religion are in tune with each other. As for people who
"claim' that scientists are following the money, that is bogus and
dishonest. The scientific community , for the most part follows guidelines that
protect that from happening. My family gives a lot of money to the University of
Utah science and research programs. I'm insulted when I see people bad
mouth scientists! We put our money where our moth is.

So now we’re
comparing thousands of PhD climate scientists from countries around the world to
a bunch of stoners at Burning Man? Ok…

As a reminder to
maintain a healthy skepticism this is a good letter, and I have yet to meet the
scientist who is not deeply wired with this orientation already. Of course we
all know the real intent of the letter, so in that sense… not so much.

If the letter writer truly wants to engage in the behavior of a skeptic,
he would do well to read the article by Dr. David Brin on Climate Skeptics vs.
Climate Deniers to see what true skepticism looks like.

Or if his
goals are really just political, he can follow the other 99% of the party of
deniers who have been hijacked and used like puppets by an extremely well-funded
propaganda machine that happens to own a major network.

Tyler D,I wasn't talking about the thousands of PhDs. I would NEVER
disparage a PhD. They are above reproach or questioning...

I was
talking about the kind of people who show up at a SUWA meeting, or a Save the
Whales rally, or a Save the Rain-forest rally, or a Save the Earth rally...

I described them as "hippies" to get your attention. But
they are better described at "environmentalists". And yes.. the
environment IS their religion. They have perfect faith in Global Warming, and
they proselyte and defend it the same way I would my Religion.

====

I like environmentalists... we have the same goals... we just
differ in our extremism or our level of radicalization for the cause. And they
are very good people. But don't deny that they have religion (even if
deity isn't involved).

I think they have a right to their
religion, and to observe it ANY way they want. Just don't force ME to
observe it... or pass government regulations forcing ME to observe THEIR
religion.

Here's the problem... there are people who take the existance of
uncertainty over future warming projections (the range is pretty high, something
like 1.5-4.5C by 2100 in the IPCC report because contrary to popular belief they
do account for uncertainty) and then start rejecting things that are
categorically proven like "the Earth has warmed the past century" and
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas". All justified with a shrug and "science
changes". Yeah, science does change, but if you applied that logic as
universally to medicine you wouldn't trust any medical procedures at all.
It shouldn't be used as a means to justify rejecting anything you find
inconvenient.

There are going to be errors. Arctic sea ice was still
below every IPCC model projection for 2013 (even with the bounceback from the
very anomalous 2012). But that doesn't mean that everything should be
scrapped (especially when the error shows greater/faster than expected change
since it doesn't make sense to conclude something doesn't exist when
something is even worse than predicted), it just needs to be refined.

Conversely you have those that feel if something is not 100 percent locked down
as a known, it isn't something worth listening to.

I am
assuming this is all about the science about weather. The difference here being
there are those who say we should not act at all. Given the example Sir Issac
Newton, people didn't ignore, nor discredit it, but they tested it, and
built new science on top of it. There is a huge difference there. No one said
Newtons laws don't apply, rather they found instances where it doesn't
apply - which are fewer than when the rule does work.

Net\Net -
they found the exceptions to the rule, rather than saying the existing rules
were bunk. Entirely different process, and results.

I am still amazed at the lemmings that trust the climate scientists and their
projections.

According to a 2008 report by the NOAA, it was virtually
impossible that we would experience more than 15 years without any statistically
significant warming. We are now going on 16 to 17 years without any warming.
That means that the models are wrong.

If the models are wrong, why do
we still trust the conclusions based on those models?

Recently
scientists have found that the earth sheds more heat than previously thought.
Again, showing that the models are bad.

NASA can't account for
where most of the CO2 in the atmosphere goes.

The GISS data points
require significant amount of interpolation throughout most of the world becuase
we have few data collection sites in the oceans, Africa, South America, the
poles, and Asia.

If that isn't enough, NASA has been caught
adjusting the raw data to make global warming appear larger than it really
is.

The amount of information out there that should cast doubt is
astounding. The only thing more astounding is the number of people that believe
in man-caused climate chage despite the facts.